Just days in, one of the first edicts from Donald Trump’s second term as US president is already out: Federal employees will be required to report to the office in person, and not remotely.
Specifically, a memo was sent out on Wednesday from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), urging federal agencies to establish protocols requiring a return to the office. The actual process is still being worked out, and so there’s no timeline for enforcement just yet.
Here’s why cutting back on all remote work for federal employees doesn’t make sense on multiple levels.
What’s the Reasoning Behind the Decision?
According to the new memo, agencies must “…take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.”
There is one clause, however, as “the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.”
This just in! View
the top business tech deals for 2025 👨💻
The memo doesn’t explain the reasoning behind this decision. You might be forgiven for thinking that the Trump administration doesn’t believe remote workers are as effective as in-office workers. This seems to be the case.
However, an op-ed published in November by the Wall Street Journal offers an additional explanation. It’s written by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, two people who (at the time) had been tapped to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, and they argued that “requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.”
The same op-ed also states that “if federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home,” which appears to indicate a belief that working remotely is less favorable to the government than working in an office. But do the facts back up these views?
An RTO Mandate This Big Will Cost a Lot
One mark against saving money by getting people back into the office? It’ll cost a lot.
Right now, remote federal workers are located all across the country, and every one of them will soon need to report to an office, meaning they’ll have to move close to one, potentially incurring federal costs. The ROT mandate will impact nearly 3 million federal workers — that’s a lot of people to pay for.
Current federal guidelines also suggest that the government should be on the hook for temporary duty pay towards paying workers’ transportation, lodging and per diem expenses.
Plus, if workers are moving to be near an office that’s in a higher cost of living area, locality pay would need to be adjusted upwards. Real estate costs for the required office space is another expense.
Finally, there’s the potential for hiring costs, should any of the highly skilled and experienced workers who chose to quit need to be replaced. It all adds up to a big price tag, which is the exact reverse of what Trump’s administration is claiming to be attempting to accomplish here.
Remote Workers Are More Productive
One of the biggest reasons not to usher in sweeping RTO mandates, however, is that remote and hybrid positions are already very effective at getting the job done.
Studies going back as far as 2015 have found that 77% of remote employees increased productivity when compared to non-remote workers. Of those studied, 30% completed more work in less time, while 24% finished more work within the same period of time.
On the other hand, one 2024 study found that forcing employees back into the office does not boost productivity. Here are the specific findings:
“Researchers at the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh combed through public RTO data from 137 S&P 500 firms and ultimately found that RTO mandates had no significant impact on either stock returns or profitability. The researchers instead theorized that managers can use RTO mandates (and those who don’t follow them) as narratives to justify poor stock performances.” –Tech.co coverage
If all that wasn’t enough, yet another study backs up these findings.
The Boston Consulting Group combing through the revenue growth of 554 public companies to find that the fully flexible ones grew revenue 16% higher than their fully in-office counterparts, while hybrid companies grew their revenues 13% more.
Remote Workers Are Happier
It’s no surprise that offering workplace flexibility makes employees happier on average. Any of them might have loved ones to care for that require them to work odd hours or take a longer lunch break. Whether you have a small child or an elderly parent, being able to fully skip the commute frees your time up to care for them properly.
Plus, any employees may have disabilities that would stop them from working a job that requires a constant in-office presence, but who can do the job perfectly when working from home.
Keeping employees happy helps the organization itself: Studies show happier employees will work harder.
As we’ve covered in the past, one 2022 study found employees who work from home are more optimistic (89%) than their on-premises coworkers (77%) and have more job satisfaction (90%) compared to those that commute to the office (82%).
Remote Workers Face a Tough Future
The federal government’s turn-around on remote work follows a trend set by big business in recent years.
Social platform X first broke the dam back when it was called Twitter when it rolled back remote work in late 2023 along with other perks like parental leave. Since then, plenty of other companies have rolled out a tougher stance against workplace flexibility, from Dell to Amazon, which won’t even allow hybrid workers in most cases.
Granted, some tech giants are taking the opportunity to position themselves as a refuge for remote workers, Microsoft and Spotify among them. In addition, small startups everywhere may be more likely to offer remote work, given that it gives them an edge over larger companies like Amazon.
However, it seems the genuine value of remote work is being increasingly overlooked by those who are more invested in offering employees a stick rather than a carrot. The world will be worse as a result.
